redundancy terms: (six weeks offered in 2003 now only statutory)

The company I work for are currently offering voluntary redundancy to those interested.

There will also be some compulsary redundancies.

There were redundancies in 2003 when the company paid out 6 weeks per year.

In 2004 the company was taken over and the new employers only offer statutary redundancy.

Someone said to me that the employees would have a case for getting more than statutory from the new company given the payout in 2003 - is this the case ?

Re: redundancy terms.

I'm not an expert on employment law but am fairly certain that "small-print of life" applies..........i.e. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The clue is in the word 'statutory' which implies that this is the minimum required by law and satisfies any legal obligation.

HTH and good luck - whatever happens

Re: redundancy terms.

Strictly the previous payment is irrelevant, even if it was made by the same company. However, voluntary redundancies usually offer some incentive over statutory, so the precedent could be useful to get the voluntary figure increased. Also, if they are eliminating a "large" part of the workforce, it's a "collective redundancy", and they have to negotiate with worker representatives before the redundancies become final. A union would obviously look to precedents in this situation.

Re: redundancy terms.

Where your employer has paid 6 weeks in the past in redundancy payments, this sets a precedent and must going forward pay the same. i.e. pay you six weeks.

You mention your company was taken over. In a transfer of undertakings situation, all your terms and conditions transfer with you to your new employer. So this could also apply to the precedent set by the company earlier.

Re: redundancy terms.

Ms X said:

Where your employer has paid 6 weeks in the past in redundancy payments, this sets a precedent and must going forward pay the same. i.e. pay you six weeks.

Click to expand...

Why? Where in employment law is this stated?

Re: redundancy terms.

Ive know of companies whos voluntary redundancy programme got progressively worse over time as the companies trading position worsened. Those people who left at the end just got statutory.

It appears to me that HR departments like to offer the best package on the first round. If employees believe that the next round is going to be better then the insentive is to "hang tough" thus impacting on the effectiveness of the Voluntary Redundancy programme.

Re: redundancy terms.

Ms X said:

Where your employer has paid 6 weeks in the past in redundancy payments, this sets a precedent and must going forward pay the same. i.e. pay you six weeks.

You mention your company was taken over. In a transfer of undertakings situation, all your terms and conditions transfer with you to your new employer. So this could also apply to the precedent set by the company earlier.

Click to expand...

Possibly - but only in the unlikely event that redundancy terms and conditions were included in the employees' contracts. No employer would be foolish enough to do this because whereas they might been able to afford over-statutory payments in the first round, worsening trading conditions might prevent this being done again.